If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

That will be two in a row for the Republicans, I think Obama has to really do great in the last two debates, if Ryan wins this one. Too many gaffes from Biden might even be too much for Obama to recover.

Also I think Gary Johnson filed a lawsuit to be in the second debate, I do not think he will be though ...

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

Agree with the first part. But I know a lot of people on welfare, and they are just lazy pricks. Just sick people who take life for granted. I am for minimizing welfare.

Yet how can you judge everyone in the program from the small group you know? There will always be abuses of such programs. The only way to minimize the abuse is not by restricting access (because abusers will find ways to qualify no matter what) but addressing what makes living off of welfare sustainable.

Having lived through 8 years of Bush and the resulting economic collapse, gotta disagree on "the GOP is good at governing".

The opinions on the debate really bother me. I think Obama's demeanor was fine. He could've improved on getting to the point, but that's the usual from an academic professor. Meanwhile, people appreciated Romney working people up and sometimes unashamedly lying? I find it odd that people want a bloody debate, when I only saw one person who was calm enough to take on the issues.

There's also a persistent belief that "Mitt will work for me". Consistently I've seen this attitude among Romney supporters. Now, it's not like I haven't seen this before (Obama, McCain.) But when Mitt's positions on social programs are brought up (e.g. banning abortions & birth control), his supporters go "oh no, he won't do that, he's just saying that to get votes, [because he is me]". It's ironic, because his position of social programs links to his position on the economy. Following on the example of abortion, Romney passionately argued that only states should have a say in health insurance. Therein lies the rub - certain states practically publicly shame women who require abortions. Allowing states to take control of what is legal for health proceedings is a shortcut to accepting discrimination that has already been demonstrated by irresponsible states.

It's all a neatly woven tapestry. Mitt has declared 47% of Americans are "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement".

His supporters, who generally agree with the misleading statistic, are often offended at this anonymous group of 47% of the population who are "living on their dime". There's this notion of "I am entitled to pick who and what I pay for". So I should pay for hard-working but down on their luck people (realize how ambiguous this statement is?) and not lazy druggie slobs. But how do you qualify this? Heck, is there a difference?

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

Originally Posted by earthforge

Yet how can you judge everyone in the program from the small group you know? There will always be abuses of such programs. The only way to minimize the abuse is not by restricting access (because abusers will find ways to qualify no matter what) but addressing what makes living off of welfare sustainable.

Having lived through 8 years of Bush and the resulting economic collapse, gotta disagree on "the GOP is good at governing".

The opinions on the debate really bother me. I think Obama's demeanor was fine. He could've improved on getting to the point, but that's the usual from an academic professor. Meanwhile, people appreciated Romney working people up and sometimes unashamedly lying? I find it odd that people want a bloody debate, when I only saw one person who was calm enough to take on the issues.

There's also a persistent belief that "Mitt will work for me". Consistently I've seen this attitude among Romney supporters. Now, it's not like I haven't seen this before (Obama, McCain.) But when Mitt's positions on social programs are brought up (e.g. banning abortions & birth control), his supporters go "oh no, he won't do that, he's just saying that to get votes, [because he is me]". It's ironic, because his position of social programs links to his position on the economy. Following on the example of abortion, Romney passionately argued that only states should have a say in health insurance. Therein lies the rub - certain states practically publicly shame women who require abortions. Allowing states to take control of what is legal for health proceedings is a shortcut to accepting discrimination that has already been demonstrated by irresponsible states.

It's all a neatly woven tapestry. Mitt has declared 47% of Americans are "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement".

His supporters, who generally agree with the misleading statistic, are often offended at this anonymous group of 47% of the population who are "living on their dime". There's this notion of "I am entitled to pick who and what I pay for". So I should pay for hard-working but down on their luck people (realize how ambiguous this statement is?) and not lazy druggie slobs. But how do you qualify this? Heck, is there a difference?

nope didnt say good at governing

Originally Posted by offensive bias

Even usually means the GOP will win cuz they are good at winning, just not governing. The debate performance really didn't help.

what makes living off welfare sustainable? lack of ambition? lack of responsibility? immunity to an inferior quality of life? How can these things be fixed?

Agreed, a calm demeanor is required to make good decisions. But Obama did not exemplify that in the debate, he just stopped with the calm demeanor. That he can make good decisions as a result is mere speculation for now.

On the other hand Romney showed enthusiasm, something basic you look for in job interviews.

"I am entitled to pick who and what I pay for" - unfortunately this message will connect with a lot of people, because everyone, even some slackers think this way. So the 47-gate will not be as damaging as it sounds.

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

I wouldn't go as far as saying that GOP are simply bad at governing. Does that make sense? I will admit I find plenty of stuff they say or do outright insane (gun control views and their take on immigrants mostly) however at different times in history they have had their great leaders who were exactly what the country needed at the time. Bush is a controversial figure however he did deal with stuff which was extremely complicated and even then much of the stuff which contributed and perhaps even caused the economic crisis can be traced to clinton's administration (who as far as I understand even republicans thought was a good president). IMO the issue here is not about republicans or democrats being objectively good or bad. That's just politics. To me the issue would be about who exactly is the president the country needed at that particular time under their particular circumstances.

Now, IMHO obama is not a bad president however the issue lies in that he was ultimately not the president the country needed (Mccain certainly was not it either though). I don't think he has done enough for the whole debt control thing which has the world on its toes. I can't say I have an opinion on whether Romney is the president the US needs although perhaps I would choose him just to have someone different from obama and see what happens (perhaps this view is heavily influenced by me being reasonably (perhaps heavily) individualistic and dislike the idea of large governments though).

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

Originally Posted by kkck

I wouldn't go as far as saying that GOP are simply bad at governing. Does that make sense? I will admit I find plenty of stuff they say or do outright insane (gun control views and their take on immigrants mostly) however at different times in history they have had their great leaders who were exactly what the country needed at the time. Bush is a controversial figure however he did deal with stuff which was extremely complicated and even then much of the stuff which contributed and perhaps even caused the economic crisis can be traced to clinton's administration (who as far as I understand even republicans thought was a good president). IMO the issue here is not about republicans or democrats being objectively good or bad. That's just politics. To me the issue would be about who exactly is the president the country needed at that particular time under their particular circumstances.

Now, IMHO obama is not a bad president however the issue lies in that he was ultimately not the president the country needed (Mccain certainly was not it either though). I don't think he has done enough for the whole debt control thing which has the world on its toes. I can't say I have an opinion on whether Romney is the president the US needs although perhaps I would choose him just to have someone different from obama and see what happens (perhaps this view is heavily influenced by me being reasonably (perhaps heavily) individualistic and dislike the idea of large governments though).

The GOP is blunt in terms of governing strategy and not updated or sensitized to a changed world. Still on tax cuts and trickle down.

How did the clinton terms cause the crisis? This is the first time I am hearing this. I have mixed opinions about the Bush terms. But he is simply not a leader, just a lay person. He shouldn't have been President.

Right now we need democrats in the house if you wanna reign in the debt. We would also do well to tax the top 5%. While I personally despise selective taxation, it is needed now to avoid civil unrest and economic implosion. If we hold on to the ideal of individualism now, that is all we will be left with. Sad but true. Such a situation needs to be avoided another time.

And frankly their Bible waving is embarrassing and puts us in the same category as Iran. I thought America was about freedom and here you have these people making election arguments on personal choices (abortion, gays etc). This is a more recent perversion the GOP has acquired.

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

what makes living off welfare sustainable? lack of ambition? lack of responsibility? immunity to an inferior quality of life? How can these things be fixed?

No, what makes living off of welfare monetarily sustainable. I think there's often another factor at play. Do they have parents providing housing to crash at? A business on the side? Or just plain unable to get a job in this hellish market (where you are unable to get a job unless you are friends with them, so screw the high school grads and the older folks)?

I see lack of responsibility in most humans around me. It's hardly limited to only welfare recipients. All humans have personality flaws. How do you enforce "personal responsibility"?

Quote:

Agreed, a calm demeanor is required to make good decisions. But Obama did not exemplify that in the debate, he just stopped with the calm demeanor. That he can make good decisions as a result is mere speculation for now.

The only failure I really saw was inability to come to the point, and that's a universal flaw of older folks.

Quote:

On the other hand Romney showed enthusiasm, something basic you look for in job interviews.

Enthusiasm in taking the system apart, yes. A real plan to do it, no.

Quote:

"I am entitled to pick who and what I pay for" - unfortunately this message will connect with a lot of people, because everyone, even some slackers think this way. So the 47-gate will not be as damaging as it sounds.

It's frightening though. Because nobody can live up to those expectations of purity. We'd all be dinged for spending ~7hrs/week posting on manga forums. If I were out of work, I'd be accused of not working hard enough or not having ambition. It's funny that way. There's no attitude about helping people and addressing the problems, only "let them die".

Originally Posted by kkck

I don't think he has done enough for the whole debt control thing which has the world on its toes. I can't say I have an opinion on whether Romney is the president the US needs although perhaps I would choose him just to have someone different from obama and see what happens (perhaps this view is heavily influenced by me being reasonably (perhaps heavily) individualistic and dislike the idea of large governments though).

It is really hard to see what Romney will do, with his claims changing from week to week. The president is also not a dictator, so neither Romney nor Obama can implement sweeping reforms (and for all that's said about Obamacare changing everything, it still leaves the power in the health insurance companies that routinely demonstrate themselves not to be trusted.) Romney could kill Obamacare and I don't think it'd change much. He could repeal immigrant work permits. He could neglect contraceptive and abortion cases. Overall, life wouldn't change much for me, though the rest of the world would view America as a laughingstock (Europe was not impressed with Romney). If there are four more years of Obama, life still wouldn't change much.

I suppose I just feel sick at what Romney represents. The lie of American business. The ever-self-important delusion that wealth conveys entrepreneurship. Investors are not entrepreneurs. Wealth does not necessarily mean you are good at what you do (though you might be). Generally wealth just means you were at the right place and right time. Invention is a labor of love and risk to do something real. Investment is simply picking and choosing what you like. Romney is no entrepreneur. He is an investor who is deeply bought into the delusion that he invented new products and created jobs. He might have provided the money, but he didn't invent or implement the product. And yet we give him money and the credit for providing money. Isn't it lunacy?

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

Originally Posted by offensive bias

The GOP is blunt in terms of governing strategy and not updated or sensitized to a changed world. Still on tax cuts and trickle down.

How did the clinton terms cause the crisis? This is the first time I am hearing this. I have mixed opinions about the Bush terms. But he is simply not a leader, just a lay person. He shouldn't have been President.

Right now we need democrats in the house if you wanna reign in the debt. We would also do well to tax the top 5%. While I personally despise selective taxation, it is needed now to avoid civil unrest and economic implosion. If we hold on to the ideal of individualism now, that is all we will be left with. Sad but true. Such a situation needs to be avoided another time.

And frankly their Bible waving is embarrassing and puts us in the same category as Iran. I thought America was about freedom and here you have these people making election arguments on personal choices (abortion, gays etc). This is a more recent perversion the GOP has acquired.

From what I have read many of the things which lead to the subprime crisis actually had starts all the way back at clinton's administration and that was one of the major causes, if not the major cause of the economic recession.

Democrats are not that eager on debt control. I mean, they are all good about raising taxes and decreasing war expenditure (at least as far as what they say) however they are also all about increasing expenditure in a number of other areas. Those areas might be important (health mostly) but they have not really done anything to lower spending which IMO would be a must in regards to controlling the debt. From what I gather debt has not been reduced or even maintain with obama, it has increased.

My own impression is that taxing the top 5% would not really do much, it is more political than anything. I mean, how much money would that be? Would that cause at least a long term dent on the debt? Would that money even go to managing the debt? If I was on that 5%, would it go to things which benefit me in some form? The basic idea of taxation makes sense, society pays taxes and it gets something in return. Schools, roads, and a number of other things which we learn in economics classes.

The bible waving is not something I would ever agree too though, that much seems insane from my own point of view.

It is really hard to see what Romney will do, with his claims changing from week to week. The president is also not a dictator, so neither Romney nor Obama can implement sweeping reforms (and for all that's said about Obamacare changing everything, it still leaves the power in the health insurance companies that routinely demonstrate themselves not to be trusted.) Romney could kill Obamacare and I don't think it'd change much. He could repeal immigrant work permits. He could neglect contraceptive and abortion cases. Overall, life wouldn't change much for me, though the rest of the world would view America as a laughingstock (Europe was not impressed with Romney). If there are four more years of Obama, life still wouldn't change much.

I suppose I just feel sick at what Romney represents. The lie of American business. The ever-self-important delusion that wealth conveys entrepreneurship. Investors are not entrepreneurs. Wealth does not necessarily mean you are good at what you do (though you might be). Generally wealth just means you were at the right place and right time. Invention is a labor of love and risk to do something real. Investment is simply picking and choosing what you like. Romney is no entrepreneur. He is an investor who is deeply bought into the delusion that he invented new products and created jobs. He might have provided the money, but he didn't invent or implement the product. And yet we give him money and the credit for providing money. Isn't it lunacy?

Even if the whole thing was as bad as you make it sound, what is the difference? Being at the right place at the right time would have made enough of a difference even in those negative terms. How would anyone produce anything without wealth being involved? What good is a product that generates no wealth? Even if dumb luck resulted in getting wealth it was still enough of a difference so that people would get jobs out it (depending on the type of investment) and taxes would be paid over them. Even if he didn't invent the product, the risk he took over an investment would be enough, perhaps the difference between a product being there and it not being there (and the jobs that would come with that).

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

I don't want to sound pessimistic or something, but higher taxes, lower taxes, control debt etc are NOT the main problems... The political system as we know it now is facing a crisis, or rather has reached its limits, the same for economical system too. The biggest dangers or problems that are facing the economy are wealth distribution and greed, and ofc, this happened because the Economy as a " science " (well funny how some economists don't even consider it a science) has lost it's human touch, it considers human beings as nothing more than data, a variable... Which is quite dangerous

As for the political system (aka democracy in general), the biggest danger is a new kind of illitrecy, I'm not even talking about writing/calculating or even using the computer, I'm talking about extremely dangerous : How the educational system do not produce people able to " think " and able to distinguish what's " good " and " bad " for them, and more than that, we're just mass producing " donkeys " (excuse me for the term) who are just programmed or something like that. A person who does have some values, who can " think ", who is kinda logical, but doesn't know to write or anything of the sort is x100 better than someone who knows how to write, but doesn't think for himself at all.

Another thing also : The " I " overcame the " We ". And that is dangerous, everybody is just looking for his own interests even if it means that his neighbor, brother, will have to deal with severe consequences thanks to his act. Selfishness is also dangerous.

The reason I'm saying this is : Wether Romney, or Obama, or whatever... It won't change much

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

Well, economy as a science can't really think of people as more than that in any scenario. The whole thing would go from extremely difficult and subjective to outright impossible as it would be impossible to factor in things beyond people as a number. Even microeconomics end up seeing things from a perspective in which one person is simply too small. What do you mean by dangerous though? What dangers exactly are you talking about?

As far as distinguishing good and bad I think we should start by whether the educational system should be teaching that at all. There is a good chunk of the whole thing which is plain subjective to begin with and could easily get in the way of what parents want to teach their kids. If anything the system should focus on the legal and ethical aspects which concern living in society however any more than that can cause troubles. Thinking for yourself, individuality... can those things even be taught? I would argue that in the US those things are already taught, the issue would be that those things as a goal are overwhelmingly difficult to obtain regardless of the educational system. I am more of the idea that individuality and thinking for yourself are enough of a personal matter in which an educational system should not get involved in. Educational systems should focus on teaching math, science and history to whatever degree it is actually possible to pass on those things as objectively as possible (math is objective in an on itself so there is no issue there, what passes on as science can be lost in a number of pseudo science as intelligent design or creationism).

As for romney and obama.... I agree, neither will change much in the grand scheme of things. Economics are not an exact science and the measures they can take do not necessarily factor in all the things they would have to consider due to their scale. Even as far as the debt thing obama has been mediocre and even though romney is all about cutting expenses he does not seem to hellbent on cutting military but rather he seems to want to increase it (although that gets specially murky when behind that there are the employed soldiers and the enormous weapons and iron industry which they feed).

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

Originally Posted by kkck

Well, economy as a science can't really think of people as more than that in any scenario. The whole thing would go from extremely difficult and subjective to outright impossible as it would be impossible to factor in things beyond people as a number. Even microeconomics end up seeing things from a perspective in which one person is simply too small. What do you mean by dangerous though? What dangers exactly are you talking about?

I find it quite dangerous to consider humans as nothing more than a variable, or simple data, is that it makes human beings unexceptional (shit I can't find the right word for that, it's " Banal " in french), a simple example : Human being is considered in economics as a being who is interested into maximizing his profit, and thinking about himself in general. Such a view is extremely " heartless " and " cold ", as if humans feelings don't exist... I know it's nearly impossible to introduce " feelings " into mathematical models, hence why economics has lost its human touch (Sorry if I'm being unclear, but I have some trouble finding the right words because I'm studying in a Business School in French so)

I find it quite hilarious how come we don't teach Von Mises book " Human Action ", especially about the Praxeology part which actually makes sense... And how come mainstream economists consider it as garbage, while I find the shit I'm studying right now the " real garbage " (one single example is economics theories that are " built " upon some crazy hypothesis : Like a perfect market for instance, or human being rational etc)

Quote:

As far as distinguishing good and bad I think we should start by whether the educational system should be teaching that at all. There is a good chunk of the whole thing which is plain subjective to begin with and could easily get in the way of what parents want to teach their kids. If anything the system should focus on the legal and ethical aspects which concern living in society however any more than that can cause troubles. Thinking for yourself, individuality... can those things even be taught? I would argue that in the US those things are already taught, the issue would be that those things as a goal are overwhelmingly difficult to obtain regardless of the educational system. I am more of the idea that individuality and thinking for yourself are enough of a personal matter in which an educational system should not get involved in. Educational systems should focus on teaching math, science and history to whatever degree it is actually possible to pass on those things as objectively as possible (math is objective in an on itself so there is no issue there, what passes on as science can be lost in a number of pseudo science as intelligent design or creationism).

I don't agree
We are already focused into teaching maths, science, history and such, and we actually completely overlooked about Values, and Thinking. I'm putting an emphasis on that because honestly, we don't think anymore, most are like sheep driven by their desires at all. What good if I somehow raised a man who is excellent at Maths, Science etc, but lack values, critical thought etc ? Ofc, it's not up to the school to do that alone, parents, family, should be included in that process too

Quote:

As for romney and obama.... I agree, neither will change much in the grand scheme of things. Economics are not an exact science and the measures they can take do not necessarily factor in all the things they would have to consider due to their scale. Even as far as the debt thing obama has been mediocre and even though romney is all about cutting expenses he does not seem to hellbent on cutting military but rather he seems to want to increase it (although that gets specially murky when behind that there are the employed soldiers and the enormous weapons and iron industry which they feed).

Can't cut military budget... Sometimes, I even feel that the US Military is a country of its own... Well, just hope that whoever wins it will get better for the US

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

Well, as far as "making human being unexceptional" we have to make the consideration of whether humans were unexceptional to begin with or whether these idea is in itself dehumanizing people. Even if this dehumanization was happening, what exactly would be the issue here? Are you suggesting that bad economic policy is being made based on this dehumanization? Help me out with an example here, I can't quite see your point yet.

Math and science are all about thinking though, that's the entire point. The main issue here would be that values are subjective in principle and critical thought is really hard to teach (IMHO). Just look at how different certain values can be different in neighboring towns, cities, countries and so on.... Values in particular make sense within a particular social context but not necessarily in others. Of course that is not to say values are important but if you include them beyond an ethical point of view in schools you would end up limiting the very students who you argue are not thinking (not quite sure if I am all that clear here). Critical thought is even harder... learning how to think is hard, takes time and there is still the issue that the way you think will be heavily influenced by your social context. even when in school you have students analyzing stuff they will generally just show an opinion which they think will get them a good grade (meaning at that point the whole thing lost its point). Beyond teaching kids logical falacies I don't think the very way schools work can actually help. Even then, schools have kids, even if their opinions weren't at large meaningless they still wouldn't be taken seriously until they were full grown adults.

I admit I am also unsure of what you mean by this(I lack a little context here):

Quote:

What good if I somehow raised a man who is excellent at Maths, Science etc, but lack values, critical thought etc

The idea of someone who is good at maths and has an understanding of science and is generally cultured is already incompatible with the lacking of critical thought to begin with. And whether than person lacks values will end up being highly subjective. From someone's perspective this person could easily be an amoral asshole however he might consider himself a pretty straight person. Or do you mean it about this person ending up as some sort of criminal?

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

Originally Posted by Akainu

Anyone looking forward to the Vice's debate today? I heard it will be "dirtier" as well as more praising for the candidates, is that true? Who do you expect to "lose"?

If there would be any "loser" in a VP debate, I'm betting my money on Biden. Sure, Ryan is a terrible liar, but his speech is quite eloquent and it seems that he has more confidence than Biden. I'm still hoping this debate is more intense compared to the Pres candidate debate though, which I found pretty boring.

I'm not sure whether this site is partisan or not, but I found a very interesting article about Ryan. A long read, but worth your time here

Re: 2012 USA Presidential Elections

^ Hmm. To me, it honestly looked like Biden was using Ryan as a punching bag most of the time. It started rough for Biden, but he quickly overpowered Ryan. In other note, the moderator was a million times better this debate.